|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Always talking about micro-evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: "Bigger" isn't always "better". It takes more resources to maintain a larger organism, for example. Why did you consider wolves "better" than dogs or coyotes, anyway? Better in what context? "Better" in an evolutionary context means that it survives as a species more successfully than it's competitors. By this definition, dogs, since they became connected to humans and were considered useful and pleasurable companions, rode our shirtails to evolutionary dominance. By contrast, wolves became competitors with humans for territory, so they were driven, by humans, to the brink of extinction. Is this what you meant?
quote: No, dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The split between their subspecies is very recent and their DNA is almost identical.
quote: Yep, you're wrong.
quote: Well, a frog and an elephant share a common ancestor, and that's evolution. Can you explain, considering the very good evidence we have of the amphibian-to-reptile-to-mammal evolutionary pathway, the evidence you have that puts this into question?
quote: The origin of species (ToE) and the origin of life are two different theories. I was never taught that life sprang from rocks, and I don't know of any science textbook which says this. Can you provide a quote or a link which supports your claim?
quote: Do you fault the study of aerodynamics because it does not include an explanation of where air comes from? The ToE does not address how life first began; it addresses life once it got here.
quote: Oh, cutting and pasting relevant quotes from Biology textbooks to support your claims that the ToE addresses the origin of life would be allowed, I am sure of it. I'll take the responsibility for asking you to cut and paste. You could always post a link, too. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-09-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Isn't the point of faith that you believe regardless of being "shown" anything or not?
quote: If you could raise the dead, I would likely believe. That would be incredible evidence of the supernatural, especially if you just poofed these people alive without any equipment. The problem is, you can't do this.
quote: Why do you degrade the bible to a mere science textbook? Some christian Biologists believe that God's work is written in the story of life on Earth. Why would god make the earth look old if it wasn't? Why would god make genetic trees and mophological trees so amazingly similar if creatures weren't related to each other?
quote: So far, you refuse to address any specifics. You only repeat your claims as if doing this will make then true. Now answer my two questions above.
quote: What we want you to do is stop repeating your wild claims and support your claims with evidence. You say "X can't be true". We ask "Why not, the evidence shows this, and this, and this?" You say, "X is a lie of the Devil!" So you see how ignorant you are looking? It seems pretty clear to me that I would have to stop using my intellect to be the kind of Christian you are. Sorry, not interested in shutting down the brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What does atheism have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote: What does Abiogenesis have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote: Please list the names of, let's say, 10 of these "countless experts", including their area of training. Please also indicate who are the "would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God." Please list names.
quote: Yes, please name names.
quote: Do they do good science? If not, they deserve to be discredited.
quote: Why are you continuing to degrade the Bible by reducing it to a mere science textbook? Also, how dare you presume to decide for every Christian on the planet that if they do not follow your particular beliefs and your particular interpretation of certain parts of the bible, that they are "rebelling against God"? Apparently, you must think that you are the only one in the world qualified to judge if someone is a "true Christian" or not. How grotesquely arrogant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Please indicate where anyone has ever called someone an "evolutionary heretic." If we criticize a source it is probably because it is not a peer-reviewed, scientific source. Professional scientists use professional, peer reviewed journals to publish their work. Quotes from popular press books or on-line publications are not scientifically-valid unless they are properly referencing peer-reviewed work. That is because one can say anything one wants to in a popular press book regardless of validity.
quote: Actually, most Creationists were never trained experts in scientific fields which deal with Evolution, and a surprising number are not trained in the sciences at all. Almost all are Creationists for religious reasons; almost to a person, they are ALL Christian fundamentalists. In contrast, Biologists, as all scientists are, a very diverse group WRT religious beliefs. That Creationists are very nearly all Fundamentalist Christian, and Biologists are quite diverse in their religious views, is extremely telling, don't you think, Skeptic?
quote: Actually, the mechanism for "macroevolution" is exactly the same mechanism for microevolution according to Biologists. Can you please explain, in detail what barrier exists that would prevent many, many small changes over time from accumulating to result in large phenotypic differences between "parent" and "daughter" species?
quote: Please list and counter all falaccies made in response to evidence you have presented.
quote: Not true. Remember, just because you are unable to refute evidence does not make it "irrefutable".
quote: Please list these flaws, and please list the ad hominem attacks in response to your refutations. Or, you can link to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: At the risk of drawing off-topic ire from Admin, I will reply once to this. we can begin a new topic on bias if you wish to continue. I would agree that everyone comes here with some bias. However, there are different kinds of bias, and all bias is not a hinderance or a "bad" thing. The kind of bias that many of the evolutionists here have is bias in favor of the evidence. We go where the evidendce leads, so we are biased towards trusting in the evidence to show us, as clearly as possible, the nature of the Universe. The kind of bias many religious people/Creationists have is the kind that makes them, for example, consider acceptable any evidence that supports what their religious beliefs are before they ever look at any evidence, and unacceptable any evidence that contradicts what they have already decided ahead of timemust be true according to their religion. Do you see how the evidence found in nature leads scientific inquiry, and that Creationists are simply picking and choosing evidence in order to make their ideas look credibly scientific, and then ignore everything else? These are opposites. Certainly, I do not mean to say that all science-mided people are free of "bad bias", but I also think that this kind of "bad bias" is part and parcel of being a Creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If you think I'm wrong, then show me how I'm wrong. I have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future, so I welcome correction. What I don't welcome is people who cannot or will not support their claims who then become indignant. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a debate board. Debate occurs when people talk about why they think an opposing viewpoint is incorrect. It seems that you don't like to debate, or find it upsetting, so it's probably good that you take a break to cool down. Hopefully, you will eventually realize that debate and disagreement is natural and healthy when discussing science and you will not become so threatened in the face of discussion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024